Verse 9.53

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

क्रियाभ्युपगमात् त्वेतद् बीजार्थं यत् प्रदीयते ।
तस्यैह भागिनौ दृष्टौ बीजी क्षेत्रिक एव च ॥ ५३ ॥

kriyābhyupagamāt tvetad bījārthaṃ yat pradīyate |
tasyaiha bhāginau dṛṣṭau bījī kṣetrika eva ca || 53 ||

If however the seed is given for the purpose of sowing, after the acceptance of a compact,—in that case both, the owner of the soil and the owner of the seed, are considered to be sharers of the produce.—(r>3)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said in the preceding verse that in the absence of a compact, the produce belongs to the owner of the soil. The question that arises next is—In case there is a compact, does the crop belong to the owner of the seed or to both? It. is in answer to this that the present verse declares that it belongs to both.

^‘Acceptance of the compact.’—The term^‘Kriyā’ stands for the compact, the agreement, that^‘this shall be so and so’;—when such compact has been ‘accepted,’—‘it’—i.e., the ‘seed,’ as is clear from the context—is^‘given’—‘for the purpose of sowing’—i.e., for the purpose of the raising of the crop,—then of this crop both are sharers.—(53)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣara (2.127) which adds the following explanation:—In a case where the ‘field’ is lent to the seed-owner for sowing, on the mutual understanding that the child born would belong to both parties, both of them will be owners of the child, as has been (dṛṣṭa) held by the great sages.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 656), which adds that the term ‘kriyā’ here stands for the agreement that ‘the child born would belong’ to both of us;’ and adds that it is only sons born under these conditions that can be called ‘Dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa.’

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 350), which adds the following explanation:—‘In a case where the owner of the field lends his field to the owner of the seed, after entering into an agreement with him to the effect that the child born shall belong to both,—the child is held to belong to both the parties.’

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 557), which adds that this rule applies also to the case where the ‘seed-owner’ concerned may already have sons of his own;—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p..653);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra 38a);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 185b), which adds the following explanation:—A man has agricultural land, and another has, the seed-grains,—the two enter into an agreement ‘let us, combine our resources and cultivate the land conjointly and the out turn shall belong to both of us,’—in this case the crop belongs to both; similarly when the husband of the wife enters into an agreement with another man that ‘you beget a child on my wife and the child shall belong to both of us,’ the child that is born belongs to both, and having two fathers, he is called ‘Dvyāṃvṣyāyaṇa.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.48-56)

(See the texts under 31-44.)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.48.